Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[articulett]

And randfand-- I love listening to any mp3 or reading anything by former Mormon, Bob McCue. He's just so very eloquent on the subject and neurology and how religions influence our perceptions. The whole ex-mormon conference is available for download--and though I was never Mormon, I do relate. I really relate. It was my childhood best friend (Mormon) who clued me into the fact that there was more than one infallible guy and they didn't seem to agree.

 

[RandFan]

And randfand-- I love listening to any mp3 or reading anything by former Mormon, Bob McCue. He's just so very eloquent on the subject and neurology and how religions influence our perceptions. The whole ex-mormon conference is available for download--and though I was never Mormon, I do relate. I really relate. It was my childhood best friend (Mormon) who clued me into the fact that there was more than one infallible guy and they didn't seem to agree.

Got links?

I live for mp3's and videos. I check out http://www.richarddawkins.net/ every day for videos and audio files.

Thanks in advance if you do. If not I will find them and thanks for the recomendations.

 

[Elind]

but I was smote--

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=559
(if you can't read it--you have red--green colorblindness)

I can see, I can see, I can see......thank you, I never knew....

 

[articulett]

Got links?

I live for mp3's and videos. I check out http://www.richarddawkins.net/ every day for videos and audio files.

Thanks in advance if you do. If not I will find them and thanks for the recomendations.

Oh good... these are fantastic, and I haven't been able to share them--

http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/2006ConferenceReport

Tal Bachman is outstanding too. http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_podcast.html
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_pbs_the_mormons.html

And here is a pretty good podcast by a former Mormon couple...

http://www.eighthourlunch.com/

And I put a lot of podcasts over in the podcast section for forum members only. I also put a list of the books I was reading in the what are you reading section--mostly brain stuff.

FFRF.org is the freedom from religion foundation and they have a great podcast by a former fundamentalist minister-- Dan Barker... I learned about him from a great former Mormon I look forward to seeing at TAM every year.
I really find kinship with former believers... there's that desperate search to be a good person and believe the right thing and find out what god wants and then the unclear weird directives that are supposed to help and the questions you musn't ask-- but if it's about eternity... you can't just hope you got things right... I think you will be moved by these podcasts. Put Bob McCue and mp3 or video into a search if you like him. You see the struggle as people become what they were taught to fear-- and the real pain-- and then the joy. I just have an amazing amount of respect for such people. You read like you'd make a great speaker at one of their events. I wouldn't feel right going (I'd be a fraud )... but I love hearing their stories. Julia Sweeney's "letting go of God" is a former Catholics journey and, in many ways, similar to my own-- and it's so charming.

Yes, I have a lot of podcasts-- I love listening while I shop or do chores. John Safran is a great comedian to listen to also-- irreverent... in fact, I have a few favorite irreverent comedians and songs, but I shan't overwhelm you. I'm just excited I get to share these treasures I discovered with someone else who might enjoy them like I did.

 

[Pixel42]

This is called cognitive dissonance. Unless you are willing to look critically at what you are most certain about then you are not a very critical thinker. That is the very essence of critical thinking.

In my experience, the more emotionally invested someone is in a belief, the less they are able to apply critical thinking to it. That's why someone can be perfectly rational and logical 90% of the time, but completely fail to apply those skills the other 10%. Someone who has always vaguely believed in astrology because "the people I know are more like their star signs than I would expect them to be by chance" will be fascinated when you explain subjective validation and confirmation bias to them, get it straight away, and modify their beliefs without difficulty. Someone who has, for whatever reason, emotionally invested in their belief in astrology, made it part of their very identity, will respond very differently.

I have pointed out to Scot many times that religious experiences are produced by drugs and epileptic attacks, so it is not particularly surprising or impressive that he can auto suggest himself into having one. I could probably do so too, if I tried hard enough. It does not affect the fact that there is ample evidence that The Book of Mormon is the most clumsily cobbled together fake holy book in the history of holy books. But his emotional investment in this nonsense is so high that he cannot permit himself to even consider such an argument seriously, and I know I will never persuade him to do so. All I can do is present the counter arguments every time he uses my favourite Doctor Who forum to proselytise, so that anyone who reads his posts also gets the other POV and can make an informed choice about whether or not to take his claims seriously.

 

[RandFan]

In my experience, the more emotionally invested someone is in a belief, the less they are able to apply critical thinking to it. That's why someone can be perfectly rational and logical 90% of the time, but completely fail to apply those skills the other 10%. Someone who has always vaguely believed in astrology because "the people I know are more like their star signs than I would expect them to be by chance" will be fascinated when you explain subjective validation and confirmation bias to them, get it straight away, and modify their beliefs without difficulty. Someone who has, for whatever reason, emotionally invested in their belief in astrology, made it part of their very identity, will respond very differently.

I have pointed out to Scot many times that religious experiences are produced by drugs and epileptic attacks, so it is not particularly surprising or impressive that he can auto suggest himself into having one. I could probably do so too, if I tried hard enough. It does not affect the fact that there is ample evidence that The Book of Mormon is the most clumsily cobbled together fake holy book in the history of holy books. But his emotional investment in this nonsense is so high that he cannot permit himself to even consider such an argument seriously, and I know I will never persuade him to do so. All I can do is present the counter arguments every time he uses my favourite Doctor Who forum to proselytise, so that anyone who reads his posts also gets the other POV and can make an informed choice about whether or not to take his claims seriously.

You know, not that long ago I tried, with great difficulty, to defend the notion that Mormonism isn't more wacky than most religions. I happen to believe most religions are pretty wacky. Bill Maher actually, in a backhanded way, defends Mormons. Watch it.

 

[Pixel42]

Absolute certainty is not a bad thing at all if it's directly given and confirmed by God

It's your absolute certainty that your absolute certainty is directly given and confirmed by God that's the problem, Scot. There is absolutely no justification for it.

Randfan: I have a crappy dial-up connection that stays up for a maximum of 30 minutes at a time. So downloading and watching videos is sadly impossible for me at present.

ETA: A surprisingly rational Anglican priest on the Doctor Who forum just quoted his old boss Richard Holloway as saying "the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty". Something for Scot and rcronk to ponder on, methinks.

 

[articulett]

In my experience, the more emotionally invested someone is in a belief, the less they are able to apply critical thinking to it. That's why someone can be perfectly rational and logical 90% of the time, but completely fail to apply those skills the other 10%. Someone who has always vaguely believed in astrology because "the people I know are more like their star signs than I would expect them to be by chance" will be fascinated when you explain subjective validation and confirmation bias to them, get it straight away, and modify their beliefs without difficulty. Someone who has, for whatever reason, emotionally invested in their belief in astrology, made it part of their very identity, will respond very differently.

I have pointed out to Scot many times that religious experiences are produced by drugs and epileptic attacks, so it is not particularly surprising or impressive that he can auto suggest himself into having one. I could probably do so too, if I tried hard enough. It does not affect the fact that there is ample evidence that The Book of Mormon is the most clumsily cobbled together fake holy book in the history of holy books. But his emotional investment in this nonsense is so high that he cannot permit himself to even consider such an argument seriously, and I know I will never persuade him to do so. All I can do is present the counter arguments every time he uses my favourite Doctor Who forum to proselytise, so that anyone who reads his posts also gets the other POV and can make an informed choice about whether or not to take his claims seriously.

Agreed. (And I nominated your other post for the TLA)... There's a clip on Randi's video secret of the psychics where has his students read their astrology charts that were made with their birth dates by an expert (or so they are told)-- they are amazed at the accuracy though they say they are usually skeptical of such things... then they exchange horoscopes and it turns out they are all the same. And people laugh and enjoy the lesson... except there is this one guy who is really pissed. He doesn't want to believe he can be fooled. He wanted to fool Randi and say, "ha--see astrology works"-- And I show this clip to my students... I tell them that these are college kids and if they understand why he's mad-- they are smarter than him. Everyone else learned a valuable lesson-- but this guy was too busy protecting his ego to savor the lesson-- even he could be fooled. And now it's going to be harder and harder for him to learn this. He just comes across as such a dick-- whereas, the kids who laugh at themselves are just charming-- and they get it--moreover, there is the added lesson of how ego gets in the way of learning some very valuable information.

Once I learned that people could be tricked-- I wanted to learn how. I love learning how people are manipulated or influenced or mistaken-- not because I want to do it to anyone-- because I don't want it done to me. I want to know the truth--not believe in magic. I show my students assorted magic tricks revealed (the believe that Criss Angel is real and such)-- and I ask them if they'd rather keep believing that he's for real... or do they want me to research how something is done. I also ask, if he really levitates why isn't he doing it all the time anywhere? If psychics are real, why aren't they winning lotteries. Why aren't they predicting big events like 9-11 or unlikely things like Steve Irwin dying by being stabbed in the heart by a stingray.

I always wonder about whether it's good to just let people believe if they want to--but I think it's important to plant the seeds of doubt. They bore great fruit in my case. Maybe not older people... or people with harmless beliefs that give them comfort-- but kids will need critical thinking skills in the future as more avenues for manipulation evolve.

 

[articulett]

I love that Maher clip-- I think Bill Maher is great... very astute. He has a great stand up recently released called The Decider (which I'd be glad to PM you if asked). He has a movie coming out ... you probably saw this:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1540,n,n

Tentatively titled "religulous" (like ridiculous... and "Caligula" kind of too)

And that's it exactly-- that's what confused me as a kid-- all these wise men and authority figures telling us about ETERNITY-- but they didn't agree with each other-- and why the hell weren't scientists doing tests to figure the real prophets and infallible leaders -- for the sake of ALL our ETERNITYS. What could be more important than ETERNITY??? Isn't it a little lackadaisical to assume that you were born into or stumbled across the right rubric when we were talking FOREVER?? And lots of people clearly had the wrong rubric if any one was right.

This gave me much angst. At 12 I did the confirmation bias thing-- heck, the Catholics were the one's with the stigmata and such-- if that wasn't a clue from god, then what was? My religion must be true-- plus all the nicest people I knew were Catholic-- and there were tons of us-- that must count for something...

I grew up and understood confirmation bias for what it was. Most other religious people have not... and there's always so much I want to ask to see what they are thinking-- but they aren't thinking. They've taught themselves not to. Faith is the key to salvation, after all-- and thinking doesn't bode well for faith. They are so sure they have a truth for others that they never stop and consider that someone else might have a kernel of wisdom for them. My Catholic brother seems to demand respect for his beliefs and opinions (stated as fact with my implied agreement), but he doesn't even seem to consider that I have opinions-- or that there are ways to test claims-- or that he's trying to shame me into accepting his beliefs which don't speak well for his morals. (Moreover, he told my son he felt sorry for me because I "lack a value system"--?? -- I have enough of a value system never to tell any kid that their parent "lacked a value system".)

An aside... as I ramble... I want to add Dogma Free America to the podcast list: http://dogmafreeamerica.com/ It's done by forum member, Rich Ormand, and it's great-- a little more conservative, randfan, which I know you'll appreciate.

 

[RandFan]

I love that Maher clip-- I think Bill Maher is great... very astute. He has a great stand up recently released called The Decider (which I'd be glad to PM you if asked). He has a movie coming out ... you probably saw this:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1540,n,n

Tentatively titled "religulous" (like ridiculous... and "Caligula" kind of too)

And that's it exactly-- that's what confused me as a kid-- all these wise men and authority figures telling us about ETERNITY-- but they didn't agree with each other-- and why the hell weren't scientists doing tests to figure the real prophets and infallible leaders -- for the sake of ALL our ETERNITYS. What could be more important than ETERNITY??? Isn't it a little lackadaisical to assume that you were born into or stumbled across the right rubric when we were talking FOREVER?? And lots of people clearly had the wrong rubric if any one was right.

This gave me much angst. At 12 I did the confirmation bias thing-- heck, the Catholics were the one's with the stigmata and such-- if that wasn't a clue from god, then what was? My religion must be true-- plus all the nicest people I knew were Catholic-- and there were tons of us-- that must count for something...

I grew up and understood confirmation bias for what it was. Most other religious people have not... and there's always so much I want to ask to see what they are thinking-- but they aren't thinking. They've taught themselves not to. Faith is the key to salvation, after all-- and thinking doesn't bode well for faith. They are so sure they have a truth for others that they never stop and consider that someone else might have a kernel of wisdom for them. My Catholic brother seems to demand respect for his beliefs and opinions (stated as fact with my implied agreement), but he doesn't even seem to consider that I have opinions-- or that there are ways to test claims-- or that he's trying to shame me into accepting his beliefs which don't speak well for his morals. (Moreover, he told my son he felt sorry for me because I "lack a value system"--?? -- I have enough of a value system never to tell any kid that their parent "lacked a value system".)

An aside... as I ramble... I want to add Dogma Free America to the podcast list: http://dogmafreeamerica.com/ It's done by forum member, Rich Ormand, and it's great-- a little more conservative, randfan, which I know you'll appreciate.

Great stuff,

Of course let's not forget http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

 

[ChristineR]

My main source on that history comes from Krakauer and if you read it I'm surprised you say that. They rejected it because they were forced to by the US government, and then proceeded to do it anyway. True, most probably don't now because they have been raised to think it's not accepted in mainstream society. However there is little doubt that they dropped it from pressure and would otherwise be happily denying some poor Mormon boys marriage today, because there weren't enough women to go around, had they not been forced to do so. The "revelations" that they received to justify dropping it came, inconveniently, AFTER the change, not before (unless they have cooked the books since).

As to being an awful idea. Awful? Most Muslims don't think so. Makes one wonder where that Joseph got the idea?




If you read the news there's plenty enough of that going on in churches of all kinds. I think it just stands out in Mormon areas because there's a higher concentration of gullible people of the same faith there. Easier for cons to work. I doubt they are more criminally inclined than anyone else.

First off, according to Krakauer Utah has the highest fraud rate of any state in the nation, and the fair-lds site acknowledges this to be true. I don't know if it's because of the concentration of a religious minority (people in a minority group are more likely to be believe one of their own) or because of the tendency of Mormons to pray to God for guidance on financial matters. Probably both, which is what Krakauer argued.

Polygamy: Mormons did give it up somewhat reluctantly and there was plenty of cheating at first, but the majority of Mormons now find it despicable, as does the majority of everyone else. Including Muslims. The truth is that is causes huge social problems and rewards a handful of community leaders. Mormons made the choice to be members of a stable, democratic society, which means no polygamy.

 

[ChristineR]

P.S. ChristineR - I've been waiting for your comments on the Book of Mormon wordprinting article. What do you think?

I decided I wasn't qualified to judge.

I found a number of commentaries on the article which in effect said (1) wordprinting is not always valid--there's no cosmic law to stop someone from changing his writing style (2) even if wordprinting is valid or partly valid, the researchers appear to have made mistakes in application and (3) no one has done any comprehensive tests of how often wordprinting works, how and why it fails, whether people who are trying to disguise their writing style will change their wordprints, etc.

I was especially bothered by (2). I would think that the Mormon researchers would want to eliminate all the problematic issues and repeat their research right away, but I didn't find any evidence that they've done it.

Unfortunately, even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon was written by a large number of different people there are still reasons to place it in the nineteenth century.

 

[articulett]

Polygamy makes for a surplus of horny young males eager to rebel. It's like a pyramid scheme for the guys at the top, an the women are the "incentive" to work the program so to speak. God (via the prophet) tells them who they will marry. And once a young girl is married and having a baby every year, then there is an even stronger incentive to have faith that this is what god wants-- how can such a girl make it in the outside world with no education and such a big brood and the fear that she'll go to hell etc. She needs the other wives to help her raise her brood and she needs her faith because it means there's a reward at the end of the tunnel (but not a great one for Mormon women).

There are still many harem societies... but they are unstable-- however they are a great way to pass lots of similar genes and memes into people who will prop up the faith and help others of the faith rise in rank.

But societies that do that lose the input and minds of the women as they struggle to raise the people they brought into the world instead of helping, educating, and learning from the people who are already here. This sort of society depends on keeping women pregnant and always busy with another mouth to feed lest they think and read and (gasp) rebel.

 

[articulett]

According to Linda Walker and Flora Jessup's speech, the LDS does sort of help out polygamous clans by returning runaway brides and getting rid of surplus boys http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/2006ConferenceReport

--and Mormon doctrine does assert polygamy in the next life. Men are the ones that get the message from god about which woman marries who-- and this still is used by enterprising Mormon men-- It probably wasn't too hard to convince Elizabeth Smart that her captor got a message from god about making her his wife-- and if he gave her her first orgasm, I bet she considered it a sign that it was true...

I don't think polygamy is despicable nor Mormons nor the fact that Mormons are tied to polygamy... I just don't think the church has any claims on the truth and a lot of methods for manipulating people (especially women) into thinking they do. I think this is a recipe for abuse of trust by liars, scam artists, and just the deluded who are sure that god is given them particular messages. Whose to say whether god is or isn't?-- according to Mormon doctrine, this is the way god communicates-- and there is no method of telling true revelation from the false ones. If it feels good--it's probably "true"-- if you find it abhorrent, the "the individual was misguided". (No true Scotsman.)

Krackaur's book illustrated just how scary this is. Suppose someone is convinced as is Scot and rconk of their truth--but it involves a truth that causes others to suffer (the example in the book)-- isn't history replete with these misguided truths? Shouldn't we call them all delusions until we get some evidence of a god that exists and reveals himself in such nebulous ways? And isn't such a god a dick if he doesn't give his beloved creation measuring tools or a method from determining his real directives from all the silliness and "misguided notions" and downright evil directives?

 

[articulett]

Great stuff,

Of course let's not forget http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

But of course. I feel like I knew Perry.

WNYC has some great programs on neurology-science:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/08/28 (on love)

 

[Elind]

First off, according to Krakauer Utah has the highest fraud rate of any state in the nation, and the fair-lds site acknowledges this to be true. I don't know if it's because of the concentration of a religious minority (people in a minority group are more likely to be believe one of their own) or because of the tendency of Mormons to pray to God for guidance on financial matters. Probably both, which is what Krakauer argued.

My opinion, based on what I've read on other church type frauds from time to time, is that the primary reason is simple gullibility and a strong desire to trust someone you think is like you; special. Possibly the fact that they have been fairly industrious and therefore I would guess (I haven't seen stats) wealthier than average, would also make them juicier targets.

Polygamy: Mormons did give it up somewhat reluctantly and there was plenty of cheating at first, but the majority of Mormons now find it despicable, as does the majority of everyone else. Including Muslims. The truth is that is causes huge social problems and rewards a handful of community leaders. Mormons made the choice to be members of a stable, democratic society, which means no polygamy.

The LDS does now speak out about it, but I'll bet large numbers of Mormon men have wet dreams about it still. It's still in their bible, and they do produce fundie prophets still.

As to Muslims, I have never heard a Muslim speak out against it. Allah allows it. How can they? Practically it's expensive. Only some can manage, but it's very common in the Middle East. Obviously not in the West where it's not allowed, and where their women have a greater say, but as far as being obsolete or considered "despicable"; not at all.

 

[Marcus]

ok, I'll play one more time but only because you were short and to the point - speaking in tongues can be counterfeited by satan - I've seen it happen. Tom Cruise gets his information from men instead of directly from God. Is that good enough?

It appears to me that you and Articulett are in agreement. Her point all along has been that all religions believe that their woo is the true woo. And your response to this criticism is..."My woo is the true woo!"

Apologies if this comment is dated, I'm 2 pages behind.

 

[Elind]

It appears to me that you and Articulett are in agreement. Her point all along has been that all religions believe that their woo is the true woo. And your response to this criticism is..."My woo is the true woo!"

Apologies if this comment is dated, I'm 2 pages behind.

A good comment is always better late than never.

 

[Kopji]

kopji [/B]- Yes, I have already acknowledged many times that deception can and does occur. That doesn't prove that it always occurs...

... The purpose of the debate (or discussion really) was for RandFan to tell me the reasons he left the Mormon church. I wanted to know and investigate the claims myself.

Thanks for the response. My perspective is that of being raised RLDS and encountering much of the same approach toward 'knowing' truth that you are sharing.

Sectarianism within Mormonism does not make it true or false, but the question it raises is fundamental:

When can these feelings of 'God's spirit' be trusted and when can they not? God is either trustworthy or not.

RLDS, LDS, FLDS, etc cannot simply all be true, yet all claim divine revelation. Additionally, a claim to plenary revelatory guidance sets a high standard that is either true or false. RLDS at least does not hold to that view, and acknowledge the possibility of error.

It seems ultimately that like everyone else, Mormons follow a path that is guided by human values and choices.

 

[articulett]

Thanks for the response. My perspective is that of being raised RLDS and encountering much of the same approach toward 'knowing' truth that you are sharing.

Sectarianism within Mormonism does not make it true or false, but the question it raises is fundamental:

When can these feelings of 'God's spirit' be trusted and when can they not? God is either trustworthy or not.

RLDS, LDS, FLDS, etc cannot simply all be true, yet all claim divine revelation. Additionally, a claim to plenary revelatory guidance sets a high standard that is either true or false. RLDS at least does not hold to that view, and acknowledge the possibility of error.

It seems ultimately that like everyone else, Mormons follow a path that is guided by human values and choices.

Wow, I bet you have some great stories! Can you at least give us a quick summary. How does the RLDS feel about the LDS and the FLDS? It's such a young religion and already there are sects... how long were you a believer? Does the RLDS send their members on missions. I think the FLDS creates membership primarily through massive spawning, right-- not a lot of recruitment.